Learning about the criminal justice systems pertaining to allied nations of the United States such as Australia, New Zealand, and Japan brings about the question on conformance. The leaders of the United States have, in the past few decades been critical of Asian regimes for their atrocious criminal justice system. However, is there any part of foreign policy that relates to the systems of allied nations? All three nations mentioned earlier depend on the United States for their economy and yet, none of them emulates the criminal justice system in the United States. It is quite astonishing that Japan still practices its ancient Shogun style justice (Cavadino, Cavadino, and Dignan, 2005).
It is understandable that Australia and New Zealand had difficulties in framing new laws that do not harm innocent people. They follow the United Kingdom version of penal law and the reforms are not focusing on rehabilitation. All these nations are doing is locking up dangerous criminals and releasing them back into society (Marcus and Waye, 2010). In addition to the lack of reforms within the corrections department, these nations are unable to implement any new options to reduce crime or to come up with an easier process. The Japanese, despite their selective prosecution, fail to meet the letter of the law. Police procedures are shady and there are almost no cases overturned through appeals (Cavadino, Cavadino, and Dignan, 2005).
Invariably the common denominator is the negative approach on rehabilitation. American correctional facilities have options for rehabilitation and reentry programs. The three nations Australia, New Zealand, and Japan do not have such options. The policies are aiming to keep dangerous criminals behind bars for lengthy periods of time. The lack of reforms will spike recidivism rates. In addition, the absence of juries in Japan does not reflect its so-called Westernized guise of the law. In fact, the Chinese version of criminal justice resembles the Japanese system. While the Chinese are open about the dubious nature of their system, the Japanese are covering up the vital issues.
The United States today accepts the reality that a multitude of prisoners is innocent. These individuals have a chance to reclaim their lives through social groups. However, if a person faces wrongful conviction in Australia, New Zealand, or Japan, the process may never come to a close with the innocent winning (The 'Lectric Law Library, 2015). The popular Australian case of the Dingo and the baby is a relevant example. Despite new leaders trying to reduce criminal activity through stricter sentences, the implementation depends on the race or class of the defendant (Marcus and Waye, 2010). It is quite shocking that the policy makers in the United States are ignoring human rights violations in allied nations. How is it that their legal system is so different despite their close political association with the United States?
References
Cavadino, M., Cavadino, M., and Dignan, J (2005). Penal Systems: A Comparative Approach. Sage Publishers. Thousand Oaks: CA. Pp. 77-91 and 171-196.
The 'Lectric Law Library Staff (2015). New Zealand’s criminal justice system. Retrieved from: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/int12.htm
Marcus, P., and Waye, V (2010). Australia and the United States: Two Common Criminal Justice Systems Uncommonly at Odds, Part 2. Retrieved from: http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1610&context=facpubs
